See ＂The International System of Units （SI）,＂ NIST Special Publication 330, B.N. Taylor, ed. （USGPO, Washington, DC, 1991）; and ＂Guide for the Use of the International System of Units （SI）,＂ NIST Special Pub...See ＂The International System of Units （SI）,＂ NIST Special Publication 330, B.N. Taylor, ed. （USGPO, Washington, DC, 1991）; and ＂Guide for the Use of the International System of Units （SI）,＂ NIST Special Publication 811, 1995 edition, B.N. Taylor （USGPO, Washington, DC, 1995）.展开更多
When building a model of a physical phenomenon or process, scientists face an inevitable compromise between the simplicity of the model (qualitative-quantitative set of variables) and its accuracy. For hundreds of yea...When building a model of a physical phenomenon or process, scientists face an inevitable compromise between the simplicity of the model (qualitative-quantitative set of variables) and its accuracy. For hundreds of years, the visual simplicity of a law testified to the genius and depth of the physical thinking of the scientist who proposed it. Currently, the desire for a deeper physical understanding of the surrounding world and newly discovered physical phenomena motivates researchers to increase the number of variables considered in a model. This direction leads to an increased probability of choosing an inaccurate or even erroneous model. This study describes a method for estimating the limit of measurement accuracy, taking into account the stage of model building in terms of storage, transmission, processing and use of information by the observer. This limit, due to the finite amount of information stored in the model, allows you to select the optimal number of variables for the best reproduction of the observed object and calculate the exact values of the threshold discrepancy between the model and the phenomenon under study in measurement theory. We consider two examples: measurement of the speed of sound and measurement of physical constants.展开更多
The escalating costs of research and development, coupled with the influx of researchers, have led to a surge in published articles across scientific disciplines. However, concerns have arisen regarding the accuracy, ...The escalating costs of research and development, coupled with the influx of researchers, have led to a surge in published articles across scientific disciplines. However, concerns have arisen regarding the accuracy, validity, and reproducibility of reported findings. Issues such as replication problems, fraudulent practices, and a lack of expertise in measurement theory and uncertainty analysis have raised doubts about the reliability and credibility of scientific research. Rigorous assessment practices in certain fields highlight the importance of identifying potential errors and understanding the relationship between technical parameters and research outcomes. To address these concerns, a universally applicable criterion called comparative certainty is urgently needed. This criterion, grounded in an analysis of the modeling process and information transmission, accumulation, and transformation in both theoretical and applied research, aims to evaluate the acceptable deviation between a model and the observed phenomenon. It provides a theoretically grounded framework applicable to all scientific disciplines adhering to the International System of Units (SI). Objective evaluations based on this criterion can enhance the reproducibility and reliability of scientific investigations, instilling greater confidence in published findings. Establishing this criterion would be a significant stride towards ensuring the robustness and credibility of scientific research across disciplines.展开更多
The gravitational constant G is a basic quantity in physics, and, despite its relative imprecision, appears in many formulas, for example, also in the formulas of the Planck units. The “relative inaccuracy” lies in ...The gravitational constant G is a basic quantity in physics, and, despite its relative imprecision, appears in many formulas, for example, also in the formulas of the Planck units. The “relative inaccuracy” lies in the fact that each measurement gives different values, depending on where and with which device the measurement is taken. Ultimately, the mean value was formed and agreed upon as the official value that is used in all calculations. In an effort to explore the reason for the inaccuracy of this quantity, some formulas were configured using G, so that the respective quantity assumed the value = 1. The gravitational constant thus modified was also used in the other Planck equations instead of the conventional G. It turned out that the new values were all equivalent to each other. It was also shown that the new values were all represented by powers of the speed of light. The G was therefore no longer needed. Just like the famous mass/energy equivalence E = m * c2, similar formulas emerged, e.g. mass/momentum = m * c, mass/velocity = m * c2 and so on. This article takes up the idea that emerges in the article by Weber [1], who describes the gravitational constant as a variable (Gvar) and gives some reasons for this. Further reasons are given in the present paper and are computed. For example, the Planck units are set iteratively with the help of the variable Gvar, so that the value of one unit equals 1 in each case. In this article, eleven Planck units are set iteratively using the variable Gvar, so that the value of one unit equals 1 in each case. If all other units are based on the Gvar determined in this way, a matrix of values is created that can be regarded both as conversion factors and as equivalence relationships. It is astonishing, but not surprising that the equivalence relation E = m * c2 is one of these results. All formulas for these equivalence relationships work with the vacuum speed of light c and a new constant K. G, both as a variable and as a constant, no longer appears in these formulae. The new thing about this theory is that the gravitational constant is no longer needed. And if it no longer exists, it can no longer cause any difficulties. The example of the Planck units shows this fact very clearly. This is a radical break with current views. It is also interesting to note that the “magic” number 137 can be calculated from the distances between the values of the matrix. In addition, a similar number can be calculated from the distances between the Planck units. This number is 131 and differs from 137 with 4.14 percent. This difference has certainly often led to confusion, for example, when measuring the Fine Structure Constant.展开更多
文摘See ＂The International System of Units （SI）,＂ NIST Special Publication 330, B.N. Taylor, ed. （USGPO, Washington, DC, 1991）; and ＂Guide for the Use of the International System of Units （SI）,＂ NIST Special Publication 811, 1995 edition, B.N. Taylor （USGPO, Washington, DC, 1995）.
文摘When building a model of a physical phenomenon or process, scientists face an inevitable compromise between the simplicity of the model (qualitative-quantitative set of variables) and its accuracy. For hundreds of years, the visual simplicity of a law testified to the genius and depth of the physical thinking of the scientist who proposed it. Currently, the desire for a deeper physical understanding of the surrounding world and newly discovered physical phenomena motivates researchers to increase the number of variables considered in a model. This direction leads to an increased probability of choosing an inaccurate or even erroneous model. This study describes a method for estimating the limit of measurement accuracy, taking into account the stage of model building in terms of storage, transmission, processing and use of information by the observer. This limit, due to the finite amount of information stored in the model, allows you to select the optimal number of variables for the best reproduction of the observed object and calculate the exact values of the threshold discrepancy between the model and the phenomenon under study in measurement theory. We consider two examples: measurement of the speed of sound and measurement of physical constants.
文摘The escalating costs of research and development, coupled with the influx of researchers, have led to a surge in published articles across scientific disciplines. However, concerns have arisen regarding the accuracy, validity, and reproducibility of reported findings. Issues such as replication problems, fraudulent practices, and a lack of expertise in measurement theory and uncertainty analysis have raised doubts about the reliability and credibility of scientific research. Rigorous assessment practices in certain fields highlight the importance of identifying potential errors and understanding the relationship between technical parameters and research outcomes. To address these concerns, a universally applicable criterion called comparative certainty is urgently needed. This criterion, grounded in an analysis of the modeling process and information transmission, accumulation, and transformation in both theoretical and applied research, aims to evaluate the acceptable deviation between a model and the observed phenomenon. It provides a theoretically grounded framework applicable to all scientific disciplines adhering to the International System of Units (SI). Objective evaluations based on this criterion can enhance the reproducibility and reliability of scientific investigations, instilling greater confidence in published findings. Establishing this criterion would be a significant stride towards ensuring the robustness and credibility of scientific research across disciplines.
文摘The gravitational constant G is a basic quantity in physics, and, despite its relative imprecision, appears in many formulas, for example, also in the formulas of the Planck units. The “relative inaccuracy” lies in the fact that each measurement gives different values, depending on where and with which device the measurement is taken. Ultimately, the mean value was formed and agreed upon as the official value that is used in all calculations. In an effort to explore the reason for the inaccuracy of this quantity, some formulas were configured using G, so that the respective quantity assumed the value = 1. The gravitational constant thus modified was also used in the other Planck equations instead of the conventional G. It turned out that the new values were all equivalent to each other. It was also shown that the new values were all represented by powers of the speed of light. The G was therefore no longer needed. Just like the famous mass/energy equivalence E = m * c2, similar formulas emerged, e.g. mass/momentum = m * c, mass/velocity = m * c2 and so on. This article takes up the idea that emerges in the article by Weber [1], who describes the gravitational constant as a variable (Gvar) and gives some reasons for this. Further reasons are given in the present paper and are computed. For example, the Planck units are set iteratively with the help of the variable Gvar, so that the value of one unit equals 1 in each case. In this article, eleven Planck units are set iteratively using the variable Gvar, so that the value of one unit equals 1 in each case. If all other units are based on the Gvar determined in this way, a matrix of values is created that can be regarded both as conversion factors and as equivalence relationships. It is astonishing, but not surprising that the equivalence relation E = m * c2 is one of these results. All formulas for these equivalence relationships work with the vacuum speed of light c and a new constant K. G, both as a variable and as a constant, no longer appears in these formulae. The new thing about this theory is that the gravitational constant is no longer needed. And if it no longer exists, it can no longer cause any difficulties. The example of the Planck units shows this fact very clearly. This is a radical break with current views. It is also interesting to note that the “magic” number 137 can be calculated from the distances between the values of the matrix. In addition, a similar number can be calculated from the distances between the Planck units. This number is 131 and differs from 137 with 4.14 percent. This difference has certainly often led to confusion, for example, when measuring the Fine Structure Constant.
